Supreme Court Bound! Health Care Reform Law Unconstitutional

[Liability]

And JUST in case some of you had not read the LANDMARK LEGAL amicus brief in support of the Virginia opposition to the Obamacare bill, here's your link!

http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Pro Bono_Va Health Care SJ Brief.pdf

AND, as an ADDED BONUS, here's a link to the Judge's actual decision: Text: Judge Hudson's Decision Striking Down Part Of The Health Law - Kaiser Health News

 

[boedicca]

This ruling is an excellent step in the right direction, but the war is far from over.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The only question is: Who will Obama ask to appear in his place at the press conference to explain this?

Janet Reno?

Larry Tribe?

Al Gore? Al: Obama asked me to take his place here today because I have some experience with court cases (laughter from press gallery)

 

[Avatar4321]

Here is a much needed win for liberty. but the battle is far from over.

 

[Foxfyre]

The only question is: Who will Obama ask to appear in his place at the press conference to explain this?

Janet Reno?

Larry Tribe?

Al Gore? Al: Obama asked me to take his place here today because I have some experience with court cases (laughter from press gallery)

Reminds me years ago I was watching Cspan while testimony re a proposed farm bill was being given. One of the witnesses called was Jessica Tandy because she had once played the role of a farm woman in a movie. That provided a LOT of fodder for ridicule in the chatrooms for awhile.

Some of this stuff gets just that ridiculous.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I was looking for a thread on this in Politics. Oh well.

This isn't that big a surprise. The Insurance Mandate was the most corrupt and questionable part of the legislation in the first place. I imagine it will (justifiably) get struck down.

That's why it's a mystery to me that went in the Healthcare bill instead of the Public Option. The Mandate was nothing but a massive windfall for insurers and..... No wait. I understand it now.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Libs on SCOTUS will of course rule that it's Constitutional and you have to ask, if that's legal then what CAN'T the government require of you?

 

[Two Thumbs]

The only question is: Who will Obama ask to appear in his place at the press conference to explain this?

Janet Reno?

Larry Tribe?

Al Gore? Al: Obama asked me to take his place here today because I have some experience with court cases (laughter from press gallery)

It certainly won't be any of leaders in the EU.

what's Hugo Chavez doing these days?

B/c I really doubt any dem with any future in politics is going to be against this before he was for it then against it again come re-election/election time.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The Libs on SCOTUS will of course rule that it's Constitutional and you have to ask, if that's legal then what CAN'T the government require of you?

I actually think this will be a Unanimous ruling from the SCOTUS against the Mandate, or if not unanimous, than something like 7-2 against the Mandate. I doubt very very seriously this is 5-4.

The Mandate is one of the worst ideas to come out of the Legislature in a good long time. I'm still amazed it has any defenders at all. The Healthcare bill needed to be Public Option or leave well enough alone. They chose the most corrupt non-solution on the table.

 

[Liability]

The Libs on SCOTUS will of course rule that it's Constitutional and you have to ask, if that's legal then what CAN'T the government require of you?

It is the very question and it is the big problem because the answer becomes:

if that crap is upheld then "there is practically nothing that the Government can no longer require of us."

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Libs on SCOTUS will of course rule that it's Constitutional and you have to ask, if that's legal then what CAN'T the government require of you?

It would open the gates to anything that's "for our own good".

 

[Avatar4321]

I have to ask. Is anyone actually suprised that not purchasing health insurence means that you aren't engaging in interstate commerce and that the Fed then has no authority to regulate you?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The Libs on SCOTUS will of course rule that it's Constitutional and you have to ask, if that's legal then what CAN'T the government require of you?

It would open the gates to anything that's "for our own good".

It's a trouble precedent to require a person to purchase something from a private entity. Very troubling. The Automobile Insurance metaphor fails here as you can opt out in most states with other conditions, or just opt to use public transportation.

That's why I think this will be a unanimous overturn of the Mandate at the SCOTUS level.

 

[Steerpike]

It's a trouble precedent to require a person to purchase something from a private entity. Very troubling. The Automobile Insurance metaphor fails here as you can opt out in most states with other conditions, or just opt to use public transportation.

That's why I think this will be a unanimous overturn of the Mandate at the SCOTUS level.

That's true, but ultimately that's not the only reason it fails. State governments have broader authority to regulate in this manner than does the Federal Government. The Federal Government cannot do anything unless it does so pursuant to a power granted to it in the U.S. Constitution. The State and Local governments are not constrained by this same grant of power. So the question here is whether the Federal Government can have this mandate, not whether government generally can do it.

And, in fact, Massachusetts has a mandate if I'm not mistaken. And it's not Unconstitutional because the State government have the power to regulate more broadly in this area, whereas the Feds do not.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

It's a trouble precedent to require a person to purchase something from a private entity. Very troubling. The Automobile Insurance metaphor fails here as you can opt out in most states with other conditions, or just opt to use public transportation.

That's why I think this will be a unanimous overturn of the Mandate at the SCOTUS level.

That's true, but ultimately that's not the only reason it fails. State governments have broader authority to regulate in this manner than does the Federal Government. The Federal Government cannot do anything unless it does so pursuant to a power granted to it in the U.S. Constitution. The State and Local governments are not constrained by this same grant of power. So the question here is whether the Federal Government can have this mandate, not whether government generally can do it.

And, in fact, Massachusetts has a mandate if I'm not mistaken. And it's not Unconstitutional because the State government have the power to regulate more broadly in this area, whereas the Feds do not.

I didn't know about Massachusetts having a Mandate. Thanks for that.

I can see that you could get away with it on the State level to some effect. Truth be told, I'd have rather this whole thing been done at the State level if it was going to be done.

 

[Intense]

It's a trouble precedent to require a person to purchase something from a private entity. Very troubling. The Automobile Insurance metaphor fails here as you can opt out in most states with other conditions, or just opt to use public transportation.

That's why I think this will be a unanimous overturn of the Mandate at the SCOTUS level.

That's true, but ultimately that's not the only reason it fails. State governments have broader authority to regulate in this manner than does the Federal Government. The Federal Government cannot do anything unless it does so pursuant to a power granted to it in the U.S. Constitution. The State and Local governments are not constrained by this same grant of power. So the question here is whether the Federal Government can have this mandate, not whether government generally can do it.

And, in fact, Massachusetts has a mandate if I'm not mistaken. And it's not Unconstitutional because the State government have the power to regulate more broadly in this area, whereas the Feds do not.

I didn't know about Massachusetts having a Mandate. Thanks for that.

I can see that you could get away with it on the State level to some effect. Truth be told, I'd have rather this whole thing been done at the State level if it was going to be done.

Regardless of one's politics, thats where it was designed to originate in our concept of Federalism. Show us competing working models that we can learn from and advance on success and proven ability.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I have to ask. Is anyone actually suprised that not purchasing health insurence means that you aren't engaging in interstate commerce and that the Fed then has no authority to regulate you?

Thier reasoning for it, doesn't matter to me. I knew forcing the purchase of a product was wrong from the get go.

I'm just upset it took this long.

 

[Two Thumbs]

This would have been better served at the state level.

If a states population wants it, let them vote on it and pay for it themselves. If people in other states want it, they can move there.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

This would have been better served at the state level.

If a states population wants it, let them vote on it and pay for it themselves. If people in other states want it, they can move there.

Ditto. There's an argument that at the Federal Level you waste less money on duplicate administrative tasks, but I feel that's far outweighted by the advantage of the State Government's proximity to the people and knowledge of the local needs of the State.

There are organizations better run at the Federal Level, like the FDA, the FCC, the DHS, the EPA, etc. But when it comes to your basic welfare programs, like Social Security and Medicare, it's always been puzzling to me why they're not run at the State Level.

 

[WillowTree]

I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage. Isn't it all of the extreme right on this site who are always crying about personal responsibility and not wanting to have to pay for someone else's bills?

Well you'd think you'd be in favor of ensuring that those "deadbeats" pay their own way for once.
Cue the "you're taking away my freedom" nonsense in 3,2,1.....

Well those deadbeats can start by paying FEDERAL TAXES. That's where we start.